no, and i stated that i think it's perfectly fair of the woman to retract her offer.

You've not contradicted what I said. It's still either "put up or shut up," or just "don't put up."

Originally Posted by skylights

they did, though we don't know what kind of a choice they made... we don't know the extent to which the expectations that went along with them staying there were communicated. there's just such a big difference between "here is a space you can live in for a while" and "you may use this space if you are actively working to get back on your feet, and if you are a practicing christian, and if you wake up before 10 am on weekends..."

If some expectations were not communicated, then it's simply because the ISTP/INTJ overestimated the good sense/functionality of the family that they were taking in. To their chagrin, however, it turns out that the family could not be expected, without explicit instruction, to do such simple things as "properly dispose of dirty diapers so that the entire church is not affected by the odor." Or "please try to attend the services of the establishment that's going out of its way to help you out." I mean, since no repayment was being asked for at any point (hence no legal documents were required), why would anyone have drawn up a list dealing with that kind of minutiae? With less ignorant beneficiaries, such a list would have only served to condescend. Could you imagine giving people with better sense a list, from the get-go, that included things like "please throw your diapers away properly," or "please feed your children?" No, because no one would think that micro-managing simple day-to-day tasks in the form of a list would be necessary, or a good idea. It seems like the fact that it WAS necessary irritated the "ISTP" lady.

Originally Posted by skylights

(i agree she sounds more ISTJish, and e1w2, though who knows)

Yeah, that's my guess.

Originally Posted by skylights

anyway no... i don't think it's dramatic. maybe it's not prudent, you're right. but at the same time, it's more than just emotion and feeling slighted - it's about the indignity and disrespect. the way the woman talks about these people negates their worth as people. and implies that they are bad christians - according to the person gossiping behind their backs. is shelter or internal wellbeing more important for the kids? i don't know. i would do my best to look for a third option.

First of all, given the things the "ISTP" supposedly said in the OP, it is an extremely over-dramatic interpretation to say that she was "negating their worth as people." All she did, so far as I can tell, is sneer at some of the ISFP lady's crude behavior behind her back. What is the harm in this, besides being perhaps in poor taste? It's not like the ISFP lady even knows what was said, or that anything was said at all. Second, yes, shelter and physical well-being are MORE important than the ISFP lady's feelings, especially when it's not only her own well-being involved, but that of her children as well. If she thinks otherwise, then she IS just as stupid and irresponsible, and unsuited to parenting, as the ISTP was implying in the OP. Third, why is it necessary, in the first place, for the ISTP lady to respect the ISFP lady in order to give her aid? Why is that an expectation of her giving? One can maintain civil interaction without sharing mutual respect, and respect is something that has to be earned anyway. So why, especially given the description of the ISFP lady's ignorance, should the ISTP lady respect her? What has she done to earn it?

Originally Posted by skylights

i just think that the transgression was more on the church woman's side than on the mother's side. the mother messed up, yes, but the church woman essentially has every advantage: she has the property, she has resources and financial know-how, she has the support of the church, she has knowledge of how to raise kids, she has transportation... she has everything. and yet she still feels the need to be unkind like that, for whatever reason. maybe the need for shelter outweighs that, but that doesn't make the church woman's offer any better. it's still motivated by "god told me to" and "i need to be responsible for your family because obviously you aren't", instead of "i want to help you because you are another human and deserve to have a good life".

How do you know what the ISTP lady's feelings and motivations are? And again, why should her aid be accompanied by such feelings anyway? Is it not enough to give because one feels, for whatever reason, that they ought help, even in the absence of particularly warm feelings towards the object of their aid? Government agencies and other organizations that help the poor, for instance, certainly do not exude a warmth of feeling towards every one of their beneficiaries. Does that negate the value of the aid they give?

And yes, the need for shelter DOES outweigh every other consideration (short of being required to engage in or put up with illegal or unethical activities as a requirement), especially when it's not just you, but your bloody kids as well. It especially outweighs having to put up with a little bitchiness and some talking behind-the-back, if that's all that's going on. At least the ISTP lady condescended to treat her with the appearance of respect to her face, which is more than can be said for most organizations that dole out aid. I guess what I'm saying is that it's unrealistic to expect to receive any help that (1) is given with respect and warmth of feeling, and (2) comes with no expectations or obligations attached, so to have such basic expectations (which, honestly, are for the benefit of the family and NO ONE ELSE) as the OP described (keep your shit clean, come to service, feed your kids, use this time to try and find a permanent place) to comply with is really a godsend.

Originally Posted by skylights

true. though, the common non-Fi pitfall: your behavior is an extension of who you are. to criticize someone's choices is to criticize that person, because that person's identity informs their choices.

Like copperfish, I disagree with this as well.

Originally Posted by skylights

i do think it's important that we look at this through a Fi lens, because the family was Fi-dominant...but what orobas had mentioned about the family probably not going to church because they felt ostracized and upset and angry, i felt that way too. and Fi people really aren't all that great on picking up on what we should appropriately be doing. so it's kind of not surprising the mom was messing up as she was.

But it's not just (or even mostly) about how the family feels. What have their feelings got to do with anything, except as a paltry explanation for their failure to live up to a few ordinary expectations?

Originally Posted by skylights

if it was a pair of Ts it wouldn't matter...

Well that's fair...

Originally Posted by skylights

hm. why? to me, it sounds like she has a lot of criteria she wants met. this family's not meeting them. like you said: "the ISTP lady probably didn't understand what she was getting into. [...] The ISFP and her children turned out to be "more trouble than they're worth," so to speak." in other words, they weren't living up to her expectations. they weren't doing what she wanted them to do. she had expectations already laid out - hence controlling. if they didn't act that way, then they're out. obviously this was the case.

But her expectations consisted of nothing other than the fulfillment of tasks that would facilitate basic living for the ISFP's own benefit and no one else's! It's not like it's an option for the ISFP lady to continue feeding her kids nothing but milk, or to continue being unhygienic. You make it sound as if this is some lifestyle disagreement, with the ISTP lady trying to impose her own lifestyle on the equally plausible/functional lifestyle of the ISFP lady. That is most certainly NOT the case. And it seemed like the ISTP lady put up with a lot of failures to meet her expectations before she decided to get them out of there, so it wasn't like "my way or the highway" anyway, at least not right off the bat. And she's still not done with them, as she mentioned she would still help them when they were not living in the church.

Why can't you say, mildly, "Oh, don't be so hard on her." I think you should speak your truth about the situation. I don't think you should have left the ISTP under the impression you were comfortable or in cahoots with her being so contemptuous.

It does seem like an almost insurmountable lot of ignorance is going on there with the mother, and maybe the ISTP just feels overwhelmed and what she's doing is expressing frustration, but I do hear some contemptuousness, and maybe she just can't identify. It's difficult when you have had what people call "a decent upbringing" to understand how someone else doesn't even know where to start, can't seem to figure out the basics. You could help her identify. I would really try to soften her heart about this girl being only 20 and raised in foster care herself.

Tilty this was really great advice, thank you. Fi is very weird in that I am VERY hesitant to argue with another's "feelings". Since what she was voicing was feelings, even if harsh, it felt inappropriate to openly dispute them. I spoke about my own upbringing and how helpful it was to have her and DIL guidance..

However after church I shared a story from my past-totally made up. It was about a friend who didnt like me anymore at work because I didnt help her when she needed help. I explained to my mother in law that I dont pick up very well on indirect communication, and so since my friend didnt directly request my help, I never realized she needed help...I kept waiting for a direct request. I explained that only long after the fact did I realize how angry my friend was at me. I then explained that perhaps this might be part of why the mom doesnt seem responsive...she may be waiting for more direct communication. This prompted my momimlaw to share how frustrated she was about how another event. She said she needed volenteers to help move the following weekend and would appreciate any help. A man said "Let me know what time to be there". She said she felt confused as she had just stated it was this weekend...After this I think it made more sense about the need to be very direct to the mom. I also shared how I didnt always know how to do things and it was always great of her and my DIL to help teach me.

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Orobas, if this offends you so greatly why don't you offer your assistance to the woman and her family in need? Let her and her kids live with you until she can get on her feet. Give it a try and see what you have to say after two weeks.

I paid off her car loan to the church yesterday along with a anon note that explained I didnt need her to pay me back but instead to help others in need in the future when she had the chance and wished her god's blessings.

Originally Posted by Orangey

First of all, I think the ISTP sounds more like an ISTJ. I've known a couple, my mother included, that behave in this way. They have very specific demands for people who are obligated to them in some way, but they are sometimes too prideful and/or too harshly judgmental to spell out expectations which, to them, should be obvious to the other person. I know that my mother almost takes it as an insult when people do not behave as they are expected to behave in their given position/post, and she reacts by becoming silently contemptuous. The thing is, though, that she's not contemptuous of the person per se, but rather contemptuous of their behavior. Once the behavior changes, all is well with the world. It's not the most helpful attitude, no, especially for emotional support or counseling, but it's not about hating anyone.

As for the OP, I am failing to see what the problem is? The "ISTP" is clearly just venting, and (no matter how harsh or unforgiving her choice of words) that doesn't change the fact that her assistance has been of material (if not emotional) advantage to the family. Furthermore, a lot of the things the so-called ISTP described, if true, are indeed to be condemned. Children cannot subsist on a diet of milk alone, and poor hygiene will certainly contribute to illness and health problems. Those are facts.

It's especially egregious that the mother declined getting medical attention for her kids because she had wounded feelings/pride. That is the height of stupidity.

Perhaps the best solution would be to get someone who is better at working with people to help this ISFP lady with day-to-day things, since she's such a sensitive flower?

The venting-which tallahah mentioned is an excellent point. Let's call this "Ti venting". All I can say to Ti users is that if you vent in this manner to an Fi user, it sounds VERY bad. To work around this I have to step away and rejudge the situation with Te as my Fi answer is one of pure horror. I realize this is an unfair judgment to pass on Ti users, but it is what you will receive from Fi users if you say things this "bluntly". Oddly my ISTP ex-her son-would say things like "Pull your hand out of your vagina and man up", "Quit being a fucking baby", ""God you are acting like a fucking moron", " What a fucking douchebag idiot", "Are you still talking, seriously Shut the fuck up." In each case I could translate these blunt Ti things into a Te lessons so while crude, I wasnt offended.

However her statements mix Ti and Fe...I think what offends me on an Fi level...her statements indicate that "If the mother cared...she would do X". "If the mother loved her kids...she would do Y". They assume that the lack of the action X or Y is indicative of a lack of love and caring on the mother's part-presumtous Fe. Fe which shows love through actions. Because I do understand the mother deeply loves her kids-by watching how she holds them, how she looks at them, how she kisses them...These Fe judgments really evoke a strong Fi response in me.

If some expectations were not communicated, then it's simply because the ISTP/INTJ overestimated the good sense/functionality of the family that they were taking in. To their chagrin, however, it turns out that the family could not be expected, without explicit instruction, to do such simple things as "properly dispose of dirty diapers so that the entire church is not affected by the odor." Or "please try to attend the services of the establishment that's going out of its way to help you out." I mean, since no repayment was being asked for at any point (hence no legal documents were required), why would anyone have drawn up a list dealing with that kind of minutiae? With less ignorant benefactors, such a list would have only served to condescend. Could you imagine giving people with better sense a list, from the get-go, that included things like "please throw your diapers away properly," or "please feed your children?" No, because no one would think that micro-managing simple day-to-day tasks in the form of a list would be necessary, or a good idea. It seems like the fact that it WAS necessary irritated the "ISTP" lady.

First of all, given the things the "ISTP" supposedly said in the OP, it is an extremely over-dramatic interpretation to say that she was "negating their worth as people." All she did, so far as I can tell, is sneer at some of the ISFP lady's crude behavior behind her back. What is the harm in this, besides being perhaps in poor taste?

Third, why is it necessary, in the first place, for the ISTP lady to respect the ISFP lady in order to give her aid? Why is that an expectation of her giving?One can maintain civil interaction without sharing mutual respect, and respect is something that has to be earned anyway. So why, especially given the description of the ISFP lady's ignorance, should the ISTP lady respect her? What has she done to earn it?

How do you know what the ISTP lady's feelings and motivations are? And again, why should her aid be accompanied by such feelings anyway? Is it not enough to give because one feels, for whatever reason, that they ought help, even in the absence of particularly warm feelings towards the object of their aid? Government agencies and other organizations that help the poor, for instance, certainly do not exude a warmth of feeling towards every one of their beneficiaries. Does that negate the value of the aid they give?

And yes, the need for shelter DOES outweigh every other consideration (short of being required to engage in or put up with illegal or unethical activities as a requirement), especially when it's not just you, but your bloody kids as well. It especially outweighs having to put up with a little bitchiness and some talking behind-the-back, if that's all that's going on. At least the ISTP lady condescended to treat her with the appearance of respect to her face, which is more than can be said for most organizations that dole out aid.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's unrealistic to expect to receive any help that (1) is given with respect and warmth of feeling, and (2) comes with no expectations or obligations attached, so to have such basic expectations (which, honestly, are for the benefit of the family and NO ONE ELSE) as the OP described (keep your shit clean, come to service, feed your kids, use this time to try and find a permanent place) to comply with is really a godsend.

I have 30 sec Orangey-but in bold above....That is your Ti...the couple NEEDS this Te

understanding why the family - why the mom - may have acted the way she did... strong Fi and growing up in foster care together probably means a pretty big lack of practicality and understanding of expected social appropriateness. i don't mean to excuse the mom, just to say that the church woman probably thought the woman was more aware than she was. hence her negative attitude... she thought the family was intentionally lazy and inappropriate. i'm guessing that's not nearly as true as it may have seemed.

I agree that this is probably the cause of the "ISTP's" disapproving tone, though I'm still loathe to assign impracticality to Fi alone. But what does this prove? That the ISTP lady is more responsible for understanding an "Fi perspective" than the ISFP lady is for understanding the basics of living and raising children?

Originally Posted by skylights

well, though i am not making anything contingent upon my expectations. i mean, i'm not offering her my approval and a checklist of things to do, you know? and my approval isn't gonna get her kids off the street. anyway - to not speak behind others' backs, yes. but that criterion comes from her being a christian, and that kind of thing being decried by almost every christian i know.

Who cares if the ISTP lady is a hypocrite or not? Does that diminish the value of her generosity to the family? Sure she may lose points as far as magnanimity, but why must an act of giving be magnanimous to be valuable? Why is giving out of magnanimity more valuable than giving out of a sense of, for instance, one's duty as a Christian?

Originally Posted by skylights

though i guess to some extent it's true anyway. i hold her to the same expectations i hold (almost) everyone to - don't be a jackass, don't harm others on purpose, don't torture small animals, etc. i try to change my expectations to meet the person, though. i wouldn't expect someone who grew up in an abusive household to not have issues with violence. i don't feel like the church woman tried to meet the mother in the middle.

Well it seems like you expect the ISTP lady to be perfectly magnanimous because she's a Christian.

However her statements mix Ti and Fe...I think what offends me on an Fi level...her statements indicate that "If the mother cared...she would do X". "If the mother loved her kids...she would do Y". They assume that the lack of the action X or Y is indicative of a lack of love and caring on the mother's part-presumtous Fe. Fe which shows love through actions. Because I do understand the mother deeply loves her kids-by watching how she holds them, how she looks at them, how she kisses them...These Fe judgments really evoke a strong Fi response in me.

I think it's possible she was trying to say that in order to appear concerned and caring. If she's not an FJ, her choice to express things in that form might have had more to do with her upbringing. If she was really a T, her point was likely to express, using that language, that the mother was incompetent and unfit to raise her children. She was just using Fe to get the point across in a way that made people more likely to care about it, to see it as wrong on a emotional level.

Ironically, she might have expressed herself that way in an attempt to appear more caring. Because she knows that a lot of people respond better to what she's saying if she expresses it through Fe. I mean, think about it, which sounds worse to people...

"She's an incompetent mother, and she's not taking good care of her children at all. I don't know whether she loves them, but it's irrelevant."

"Those poor children! Their mother clearly doesn't care about them, or she wouldn't let them get into that state."

The latter is more likely to inspire people to sympathize with her and take some kind of action, because it will hit them on an emotional level and not just an intellectual level. To many people, an argument is always more compelling when it hits you emotionally, even if it can be expressed intellectually. Basically, it was more to get people to pay attention and care about what was going on, which they might not have done if she had just expressed it intellectually.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the ISTP lady's words and attitude are RIGHT or tasteful. All I'm saying is that they aren't bad enough to justify the imprudence of willfully throwing away opportunities that would materially benefit one's self and one's children.

Anyway, why would that make your skin crawl? Methinks you may be a bit of a drama queen...

Originally Posted by Orobas

However her statements mix Ti and Fe...I think what offends me on an Fi level...her statements indicate that "If the mother cared...she would do X". "If the mother loved her kids...she would do Y". They assume that the lack of the action X or Y is indicative of a lack of love and caring on the mother's part-presumtous Fe. Fe which shows love through actions. Because I do understand the mother deeply loves her kids-by watching how she holds them, how she looks at them, how she kisses them...These Fe judgments really evoke a strong Fi response in me.

But aren't "the way she holds them, how she looks at them, how she kisses them" actions as well? It's just that where the ISTP lady (and I swear she is ISTJ) is looking for Xa and Yb, you are looking for Xc and Yd. And who's to say which set of evidence is a more accurate look at a person's heart?

I paid off her car loan to the church yesterday along with a anon note that explained I didnt need her to pay me back but instead to help others in need in the future when she had the chance and wished her god's blessings.

Once again, the meat of the matter is letting her into your home and dealing with the issues.

This is what I know about volunteering. Your money will always be accepted and put to use. But in my volunteer experience, what I've been told and seen is that even though you money will always be accepted your hands and your physical labor is always on a shortage.

I guess this whole situation and your judgments and condemnation hit a sore point with me. My parents took in two families on two separate occasions when I was younger. I know what it's like to have a family living in your home (although I understand they lived in the church), essentially doubling the occupancy and the stress.

One family was fine and they happened to stay with us a two weeks when I was a young teenager. The other family stayed with I was eight and as far as I knew there were more kids in the house to play with. It wasn't until the second family came and went that I understood and my mother compared the experiences that I had a grasp on the mechanics of the issue.

First of all it is obvious to me (maybe because of the Fe) that I clean up after myself. I too didn't realize that this isn't automatic in some people or that what it means to clean up after yourself means different things to different people. To clean up after myself means to restore the area to at least the condition it was in when I got there or better. That means that I be observant enough to note my surroundings and there state. It means when I go use someone bathroom and brush my teeth and if toothpaste flicks everywhere, I wipe the toothpaste off.

I think it's fair that if someone gives you money, you are accountable to them for what you do with that money. My sister asked me for $75 last year and I assumed she needed it for necessities or something. On the weekend, I saw packages for new games and Xbox accessories. I asked her where did you get the money for this and she told me it was the $75 I gave to her. You really wouldn't care if you gave someone a significant sum and found out they used it to go on vacation or buy something unessential?

This woman's arm was not twisted into taking you MIL's assistance. Why didn't any of this woman's family take her in? In my experience, when family members cease helping in situations like this, it usually means the situation has gotten so unbearable and intolerable that even family washes their hands of it. Why don't you look deeper into what is going on rather than be disgusted with your MIL?

Why didn't the woman go to a shelter? Are there substance abuse problems? Where is the father(s)?

Have YOU talked to the woman in depth about her situation? What have your interactions been like with her? Have you just seen from afar ("she seems loving towards her kids" "they don't look malnourished") or have you taken the time to talk to her and see where her head is at? Maybe your MIL is privy to details about the situation you simply don't know about. Maybe you MIL saw something you didn't see which lead her to a different conclusion than you.

I have two friends that are social workers, I have unfortunately had family members in similar situations, and I know what I've seen and experienced myself. These situations are never as simple as your OP makes them out to be. There are typically issues such as neglect, substance abuse/domestic abuse, mental instability, and a host of other issues. As has been previously stated, your MIL was venting and I don't see anything wrong with what she said other than her thinking she was saying something in sympathetic and understanding company and being wrong.

Of course, your first instinct is to help and that's what your MIL. But after that, you need to start getting to the bottom of the situation. Once you start doing that digging and untangling those knots you find out more of what's going on and even though you still want to help you often find out the person's hands aren't as clean as you initially thought.

TBH, I feel like this is Level 1 empathy. It's not intelligent empathy, it's not empathy with discernment or wisdom. It's instinctual empathy more or less wanting to see someone else out of misery because it disturbs you. Their hurt, hurts you so you need it to stop so you'll stop hurting, if that makes any sense. To me this is like finding someone beaten and bloody on the street and taking them into your home. You don't know why they're beaten to a bloody pulp, all you know is they are and you feel like you should help. That's level 1. Level 2 (to me) is asking what happened. Why would someone do this to you, what were events leading up to this. Then you get a fuller and more complete picture and you find out what that person's role in the situation was. Level 3 is figuring out how can this be fixed. There are more levels above this and each one has it's on nuances but this is what I'm thinking about the subject.

If you're at level 3 with this family (I guess they need Te as you say), then why don't you step into the gap and up to the plate? If you so obviously see what needs to be done, then do it. You give them money, but they need basic money management skills. One conversation about money does not money mgmt make. I found this, maybe this would be a good start if you want to start with money. http://www.credit.org/media/docs/PPPdownload.pdf. She has a car now, but does she have gas? Does she have car insurance? Are the tags up to date? You would be surprised at how many people have problems filling out gov't forms and need help understanding and interpreting what they need to do to get themselves the help they need. On top of that, it's very overwhelming and frustrating to wade through all the bureaucracy and many people in her situation just give up. I watched my own sister go to the DMV three times because she didn't understand what counted as documentation that proved her residency in our state. From what you've said, I wouldn't be surprised if this woman needs help in this area too.

That's just one piece of the puzzle, this woman needs to (re)build a life for herself and her family. Maybe your MIL did as much as she knew to do, has reached her ceiling and needs someone with a different skill set to help. If you have that skill set then offer it. Start being a mentor and teacher to this woman and stop bitching about your MIL.

However her statements mix Ti and Fe...I think what offends me on an Fi level...her statements indicate that "If the mother cared...she would do X". "If the mother loved her kids...she would do Y". They assume that the lack of the action X or Y is indicative of a lack of love and caring on the mother's part-presumtous Fe. Fe which shows love through actions. Because I do understand the mother deeply loves her kids-by watching how she holds them, how she looks at them, how she kisses them...These Fe judgments really evoke a strong Fi response in me.

Like I said before, you can be so overwhelmed with what you have to do that you just feel stuck on stupid, not knowing where to start. But I do agree with the basic gist of these sentiments and if that's presumptuous then so be it. If you care about something, there will be fruits of your caring...there will be some sort of output. Output can be behaviors, actions, words, changes in patterns of thought. If I see nothing, no activity, nothing happening outside of the person that indicates to me a change is happening then I will likely assume no change is happening. No one questions whether or not this woman loves her children, the question is is she able to take of them. Loving them and taking care of them are two different things. Love will not put food in their bellies, or change their dirty diapers, or get them to doctors appointments. My neighbor loves her children, says she loves them, but social services still took them away because they haven't been to school since Thanksgiving and saw the conditions the kids were living in. You would think love would be enough to motivate the mother into doing these things, but evidently not.

Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.Interpersonal Communication Theories and ConceptsSocial Penetration Theory 1Social Penetration Theory 2Social Penetration Theory 3

I guess what I'm saying is that it's unrealistic to expect to receive any help that (1) is given with respect and warmth of feeling, and (2) comes with no expectations or obligations attached,

with this:

Originally Posted by Orobas

I paid off her car loan to the church yesterday along with a anon note that explained I didnt need her to pay me back but instead to help others in need in the future when she had the chance and wished her god's blessings.

We appear to differ. I gave with warmth and good will with no strings attached because I care for her as a person even though I barely know her. Her actions need correction, she needs guidance but I do not loathe her as a human being for her flaws.

We appear to differ. I gave with warmth and good will with no strings attached because I care for her as a person even though I barely know her. Her actions need correction, she needs guidance but I do not loathe her as a human being for her flaws.

You did one thing from a distance. Would it be different if she took the $500 you gave to pay off the car and bought herself shoes and clothes?

Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.Interpersonal Communication Theories and ConceptsSocial Penetration Theory 1Social Penetration Theory 2Social Penetration Theory 3

We appear to differ. I gave with warmth and good will with no strings attached because I care for her as a person even though I barely know her. Her actions need correction, she needs guidance but I do not loathe her as a human being for her flaws.

Caring because you barely know a person is not magnanimity; caring in spite of what you know about a person is magnanimity. Thus, your feelings of unending, unmitigated goodwill are merely a function of your distance from the situation.